"When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying the cross."
-- Sinclair Lewis

Wednesday, May 11, 2016

Whom the Gods Would Destroy...

>

Or not. After the crossroad in Philadelphia, we'll know.

by Gaius Publius

"Whom the gods would destroy, they first make mad."

–Longfellow, paraphrasing any number of Greek poets

It seems that what I worried about here — "Will Clinton Attempt to Bring Sanders Supporters into the Democratic Fold?" — will happen, and not in a good way. Hillary Clinton is done with Sanders voters, the Party is done with Sanders voters, and that's that. I've always thought that the Clintons individually, and the Party establishment generally, hate the left. I'm now convinced of it.

They're not just celebrating a still-not-won victory. They're dancing on a still-empty grave, without a drunken clue that somehow that's not smart. They must be mad. If they are, it would explain a lot.

Rather Than Campaign As Liberal Alternative To Trump, Clinton To Run As Smarter Republican

With Donald Trump as the Republican Party’s presumptive nominee, it appears the campaign for Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton will directly appeal to moderate Republicans in order to win the general election, if she becomes the nominee.

The strategy will not only allow Clinton to be her authentic political self again, but it will also end the charade of moving to the left to appease supporters of her opponent, Bernie Sanders. It would also diminish any confusion over whether Clinton is anything more than a corporate Democrat, who progressives should approach with great skepticism and opposition.

Late last week, Politico reported that Clinton operatives have initiated efforts to "peel off establishment Republicans who might otherwise grudgingly support Trump," demonstrating their eagerness to win over big money donors previously wedded to the conservative establishment. ...

This is a striking admission — one that comes in the midst of an ongoing contest with an opponent, Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders, who has questioned Clinton's commitment to progressive causes and has criticized her for caving under the temptations of corporate cash. ...

[A]fter a campaign season in which she shifted leftward on several issues to counter the message of her more progressive opponent, Clinton is pivoting back to the center — and perhaps further rightward.

The instructive point here, though, is not that Clinton would profess to share the values of Republican donors in order to garner their support. Rather, it is that she really does share their values.

Hillary runs away from Bernie: The presumptive Democratic nominee pays lip service to Sanders supporters and nothing more Clinton has shown no interest in incorporating her opponent's platform.

With the prospect that Clinton will be attacked by both Trump and Sanders as the primary season continues, one wonders why she is not doing more to embrace his best ideas.

At a speech Friday in Oakland, California, Clinton said that she had better ideas than Sanders for cutting college tuition and health care costs. ... [M]ostly, she ignored Sanders’ ideas and focused on criticizing Trump. ...

[I]t is notable that Clinton has barely budged when it comes to adopting his ideas—unless they generally agreed on an issue and he forced her to be more specific, such as during their debates when she said she would not allow cuts to Social Security. But, as was the case in her Oakland speech on Friday, she stuck to her plan, in this case saying she would target low-income women for increased benefits before anyone else. In Oakland, she said his proposal for free tuition at state colleges and universities was not realistic given Republican governors who would not fund it, and said a better approach was making all student loans interest-free. ...

There you have it: She's running as a Republican. She is a Republican. Sanders and his pals can pound sand. Ready to watch the result?

Whom the gods would destroy, they first make mad.

In the quote above, "mad" means "doped on hubris." Clinton has decided to roll the dice with the nation's future and a madman at the gate. Almost the entire Democratic Establishment — the Party itself, nearly all of its Beltway infrastructure, their EMILY's List and HRC-type enablers, all of their MSNBC and CNN spokes-surrogates — are rolling your dice with her. If she wins in July, this will not end well, no matter which way it goes.

Is Trump the only crazed one in the race? Or has hubris captured its own candidate? We'll find out.

9 Comments:

2. HRC has always been a conservative at heart, both on economic and foreign policy issues. The only area where she could be considered a liberal are social justice issues, where she can be found dragging her heels but eventually supporting the liberal view.

3. No one should have to vote for the lesser of two evils in this primary. We get to vote our beliefs, and Sanders is a lot closer to mine than HRC. I may feel forced to vote for the lesser of two evils so that my kids can have some kind of future, but I sure don't have to yet.

This is only confirmation of what we should have already known. $hillbillary is not only corrupted, but openly seeks out MORE corruption.

That confirmed, the democraps have a history of running the "smarter, better R candidate" and losing in doing so.

The last one to do this was obamanation in 2012, but before that it was Kerry who tried to masquerade as the smarter, better warmaker in his bid to prevent a second cheney admin. HHH ran as a smarter, better warmaker (viet nam) but lost to Nixon.

In each case, the D actually WOULD have been indistinguishable from the R in warmaking. Kerry, being a congenital Russophobe (as is $hillbillary), could even have been a more prolific warmonger... we may never know.

But $hillbillary has a 42 year history/record to peruse in order to form an (informed) opinion about what a total disaster $he would be. From her time working for Goldwater up through her, as secstate, fomenting coups in Honduras et al and urging on the isis rebels in Syria and Libya (and arming them) to putting in place the mechanism of the coup in Ukraine (which materialized under... correct, Kerry), we have a VERY clear picture.

$hillbillary is a neocon; $he is also a devout neoliberal who had eagerly supported TPP (et al) before $he had to temper that support because of the election thing; $he is a remorseless and iterative creator of massive human suffering toward dual ends: empire and corporate profits for her sponsors; $he is no friend to the blacks (those marauding hordes of criminals) nor the lgbt (was against marriage equality, for DOMA and DADT, before courts, the military and voters repudiated them); $he is THE MOST CORRUPT democrap in the long, sordid history of democraps; their Clinton foundation is an open, undisguised scheme to launder money and accept graft in exchange for policy favors; and, of course, $he is a congenital Russophobe, who is MORE likely that even obamanation to provoke Putin into armed conflict over NATO missiles or something else.Her only liberal positions are on women's issues, but even those are tempered by what will and won't get her votes and/or profits for her sponsors.

And every single $hillbillary position is carbon-copied by the DNC which dutifully acts as their puppet and surrogate.

There is a 51% chance that a vote for $hillbillary is actually a vote for the GREATER evil... but even if it's only 49%... IT'S STILL A VOTE FOR EVIL.

But American voters will either be enthusiastically FOR evil or tepidly against the marginally greater evil, WHICH MAKES THEM STILL FOR EVIL.

Let the Ds and America just implode and get it over with. Things are bad and we can't help but keep making them worse.